1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).‑This service appeal arises from an order issued by Directorate of School Education, Karachi dated 17th August, 1981 whereby the appellant High School Teacher Grade‑16 was reverted as H. S. T. Grade‑

14. The facts in brief are that the appellant possessing the qualification of B. A., B. Ed. was running private school known as Eastern Public School in Aligarh Colony, Manghopir Road, Karachi as Principal. The Martial Law Regulation No. 118 was then promulgated under which all the Schools were nationalized and were taken over by the Government with effect from 1st October, 1972. By a notification dated 7th January. 1978 the appellant was taken over in Government service and placed on permanent footing in the Education Department as High School Teacher with effect from 18th October, 1972. By a subsequent notification dated 13th October, 1977 the appellant was promoted to Grade‑16 and posted as H. S. T. in the Government Little Angles Boys Middle School Karachi with effect from 1st July, 1976. She continued to work in that capacity until 17th August, 1982, when one Mr. Sabir Raza came to take over charge from her and showed her copy of the notification whereby she was reverted to Grade‑

14. The case of the appellant is that the reversion from higher grade to lower grade is a punishment which cannot be imposed without proper proceedings and a show‑cause notice in writing, affording the civil servant an opportunity to represent and show cause against such reversion. On the other hand it is the case of the Directorate of School Education that the appellant was working in a Primary School on the date of the nationalization. That she was taken over as an H. S. T. due to over sight and promoted to Grade‑16 subject to revision, modification and cancellation. As such the mistake could be rectified even after the period of 7 years without any show‑cause notice. The point involved in the case has been further simplified by the learned A. A.‑G. who has made a statement that no Government circular or order has been made available to him whereby a Primary School Teacher qualified as B. A. and B. Ed. is not considered eligible to promo tion as an H. S. T. Grade‑

16. It is an admitted position, chat the appellant has not been reverted for want of a vacancy or according to her seniority in the ordinary exigency of service. She has been picked out and reduced in rank merely on the ground that her promotion six or seven years age was a mistake and she could not be retained in Grade‑

16. She has obviously been punished and this reversion from Grade‑16 to Grade‑14 amounts to reduction in rank. Such reduction cannot be imposed without a proper show‑cause notice even under the principles of natural justice. Admittedly in this case she was taken by a surprise and no show‑cause notice has been issued. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision in the case of Moazim Hussain Khan v. Government of Pakistan (P L D 1958 (W. P.) Kar. 35) wherein it was observed by the Division Bench of Sind High Court as under :‑ "That if a civil servant is reduced in rank whatever the cause may be, he must be given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The provision is mandatory and imperative and is not dependant upon any rules." . In this decision it was emphasized that provision of show‑cause notice applies even if reduction is not by way of penalty or punishment. In another decision of Sind High Court in case of Muhammad Mukhtar Ahmed v. Mir Muhammad Hussain (P L D 1955 Sind 70) it was observed by Constantine, C. J. that where a person is appointed for an indefinite period and not for a particular period and but for his reversion he would normally have continued to officiate in that rank as he did in fact for four years, the order reverting him was admittedly passed on the ground of unsatisfactory work and his reversion amounted to reduction in rank as a penalty. Thus, an obligation was imposed on the authority reducing an officer by way of penalty, to give him an opportunity to show‑cause against such action proposed to be taken against hits. We accordingly find that in case of the appellant there was no apparent reason for reverting her from Grade‑16 to Grade‑14 ; but even if there had been any justification for imposing the penalty the orders of reversion could not be passed without affording the appellant an opportunity of showing cause against such order. The orders of reversion are thus against the principles of natural justice and cannot be allowed to stand. They are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. It is declared that the appellant continues to remain in Grade‑16 and is entitled to the arrears of salary and back benefits.